Hoaxesssss innnnn Spaaaaaace

bfa1509 · 17-07-2019 12:23am #1

The Late Late Show wrote: »

The moon landings and Area 51: 50 years ago, man landed on the moon according to most. But to some, it was a hoax filmed (possibly by Stanley Kubrick) in Nevada. Area 51 is linked into it to: to some, this holds secret alien remains but others claim it has the set used for the moon landings. Some also point to the flag fluttering in wind, the by today's standard primitive technology or deadly radiation belts as reasons why man could not get to the moon.

I have an engineering background, and quite frankly, I can't believe any human ever got to space (or at least got to space and returned alive), let alone the moon landings. It breaks too many physical and thermodynamic laws, especially with the near perfect vacuum that is supposedly up there. (I can go at it with any opposers who are willing to spend the energy!!)

I very subtly and carefully hinted my doubts to some, close, considerate people I know and the one argument they always come up with is that too many people would have to keep it secret, thousands of people. This simply isn't true, the whole space program contracts all the projects out to 3rd party contractors who fulfil a specific project. All of these then converge together to form the program. Very few people need to be "in on it". And even if they blew the whistle, nobody would believe them.

M5 · 17-07-2019 1:10am

bfa1509 wrote: »

I have an engineering background, and quite frankly, I can't believe any human ever got to space (or at least got to space and returned alive), let alone the moon landings. It breaks too many physical and thermodynamic laws, especially with the near perfect vacuum that is supposedly up there. (I can go at it with any opposers who are willing to spend the energy!!)

I very subtly and carefully hinted my doubts to some, close, considerate people I know and the one argument they always come up with is that too many people would have to keep it secret, thousands of people. This simply isn't true, the whole space program contracts all the projects out to 3rd party contractors who fulfil a specific project. All of these then converge together to form the program. Very few people need to be "in on it". And even if they blew the whistle, nobody would believe them.

Just have 2 questions, how can we see the ISS and measure its position using a scope and some basic maths? I'm guessing you'll say its unmanned? Also the laser reflector that is on the moon that can be pinged and have the return signal measured (A close friend of mine has carried out this experiment with expected results), how is this possible if we haven't been to the moon? (Ditto unmanned?)

Also i have to point out that even with an engineering background that does not mean you are an expert in every facet of engineering and quite frankly your lack of knowledge for how it was completed does not count as evidence against it

bfa1509 · 17-07-2019 1:35am

M5 wrote: »

Just have 2 questions, how can we see the ISS and measure its position using a scope and some basic maths? I'm guessing you'll say its unmanned? Also the laser reflector that is on the moon that can be pinged and have the return signal measured (A close friend of mine has carried out this experiment with expected results), how is this possible if we haven't been to the moon? (Ditto unmanned?)

Also i have to point out that even with an engineering background that does not mean you are an expert in every facet of engineering and quite frankly your lack of knowledge for how it was completed does not count as evidence against it

So you are telling me that you personally saw the ISS, which is supposedly 400 km above the earth's surface travelling at 28,000 km/hr? An equivalent example would be for you to use this scope to see the London Eye from Dublin, do you think this is possible?

This concept of pinging a laser off a reflector on the moon is even more preposterous. The moon is 300,000km away, how on earth (so to speak) would anyone do this? If a laser gets reflected then that means the reflector would have to be perfectly perpendicular to the observer/laser source. This would be pretty much impossible.

With regard to the engineering, I never claimed to be an expert on anything. That's why I mentioned the physical and thermodynamic laws (laws of motion and energy conservation) which are very basic facets of engineering.

King Mob · 17-07-2019 2:46am

bfa1509 wrote: »

This concept of pinging a laser off a reflector on the moon is even more preposterous. The moon is 300,000km away, how on earth (so to speak) would anyone do this? If a laser gets reflected then that means the reflector would have to be perfectly perpendicular to the observer/laser source. This would be pretty much impossible.

...which are very basic facets of engineering.

The retroflectors on the moon work using a very simple principle. Its the same thing used on catseyes on the road.

You seem to be declaring things impossible with very little understanding of them.

M5 · 17-07-2019 2:59am

bfa1509 wrote: »

So you are telling me that you personally saw the ISS, which is supposedly 400 km above the earth's surface travelling at 28,000 km/hr? An equivalent example would be for you to use this scope to see the London Eye from Dublin, do you think this is possible?

This concept of pinging a laser off a reflector on the moon is even more preposterous. The moon is 300,000km away, how on earth (so to speak) would anyone do this? If a laser gets reflected then that means the reflector would have to be perfectly perpendicular to the observer/laser source. This would be pretty much impossible.

With regard to the engineering, I never claimed to be an expert on anything. That's why I mentioned the physical and thermodynamic laws (laws of motion and energy conservation) which are very basic facets of engineering.

Absolutely possible. Possible to see the solar panels and general layout with a 50 euro scope. Visible with naked eye in right conditions, admittedly as a moving star like object

London eye not possible due to curvature and also denser atmosphere at sea level so not equivalent at all.... Also by the same logic how is it possible to see the Jovian moons? Ganymede is 5,268 km in diameter but 601,000,000km away, thats equivalent to seeing a penny in a capsule in London eye!

You need to understand retro-reflectors, again failure to understand topic is not proof that its false

bfa1509 · 17-07-2019 2:14pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I'd say create a new thread for this, I've been a part of the few threads over the years for this, but there are some with a lot of knowledge of the subject who may be able to address your doubts

That would be great. I would especially like to ask these knowledgeable people about the near perfect vacuum (of which we have never experienced or replicated on earth) and the simple inconveniences such as preventing the space suits from exploding or how one of the astronauts plugged a 2mm hole in the ISS with his finger last September. Pretty much a quiet mockery by NASA of its loyal believers.

M5 · 17-07-2019 2:17pm

bfa1509 wrote: »

That would be great. I would especially like to ask these knowledgeable people about the near perfect vacuum (of which we have never experienced or replicated on earth) and the simple inconveniences such as preventing the space suits from exploding or how one of the astronauts plugged a 2mm hole in the ISS with his finger last September. Pretty much a quiet mockery by NASA of its loyal believers.

I'll join when you can explain the two points I raised above!

1. Iss clearly visible with naked eye, details visible with a scop including docked supply vessels, approaching vessels etc. You can do this yourself with a pair of arsto binoculars or a cheap scope.

2. Reflector on the moon. Little trickier to replicate due to laser intensity required and detection hardware. But as I said a friend of mine has done this using a laser on a large scope in the south of France.

King Mob · 17-07-2019 2:20pm

bfa1509 wrote: »

That would be great. I would especially like to ask these knowledgeable people about the near perfect vacuum (of which we have never experienced or replicated on earth) and the simple inconveniences such as preventing the space suits from exploding or how one of the astronauts plugged a 2mm hole in the ISS with his finger last September. Pretty much a quiet mockery by NASA of its loyal believers.

I don't think you understand what vacuum means...

No response to the point about reflectors?

M5 · 17-07-2019 2:21pm

Yeah, I'm not engaging on next point until this one has been proved impossible as stated by the poster.

Harry Palmr · 17-07-2019 2:24pm

I'm amazed at Kubricks energy - both making 2001 and preparing the ultimate hoax. And doing it by steam ship and train to boot.

odyssey06 · 17-07-2019 2:25pm

bfa1509 wrote: »

I have an engineering background, and quite frankly, I can't believe any human ever got to space (or at least got to space and returned alive), let alone the moon landings. It breaks too many physical and thermodynamic laws, especially with the near perfect vacuum that is supposedly up there. (I can go at it with any opposers who are willing to spend the energy!!)
I very subtly and carefully hinted my doubts to some, close, considerate people I know and the one argument they always come up with is that too many people would have to keep it secret, thousands of people. This simply isn't true, the whole space program contracts all the projects out to 3rd party contractors who fulfil a specific project. All of these then converge together to form the program. Very few people need to be "in on it". And even if they blew the whistle, nobody would believe them.

The Russians would have blown the whistle.

bfa1509 · 17-07-2019 2:35pm

M5 wrote: »

I'll join when you can explain the two points I raised above!

1. Iss clearly visible with naked eye, details visible with a scop including docked supply vessels, approaching vessels etc. You can do this yourself with a pair of arsto binoculars or a cheap scope.

2. Reflector on the moon. Little trickier to replicate due to laser intensity required and detection hardware. But as I said a friend of mine has done this using a laser on a large scope in the south of France.

I think the burden of explanation is on you. What if I said I found the cure for cancer and I want you to explain how I didnt?

Let's take the pinging moon example, it took all of two minutes to find that it is a lot more involved than you say it is and I highly doubt your friend had the means to do it:

https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/30138/is-pinging-the-moon-with-a-laser-as-shown-on-the-big-bang-theory-possible

And as for seeing the ISS using a 50euro scope, that could be anything like a satellite or a plane. But I'm sure an online NASA tracker told you otherwise?

banie01 · 17-07-2019 2:38pm

bfa1509 wrote: »

So you are telling me that you personally saw the ISS, which is supposedly 400 km above the earth's surface travelling at 28,000 km/hr? An equivalent example would be for you to use this scope to see the London Eye from Dublin, do you think this is possible?

This concept of pinging a laser off a reflector on the moon is even more preposterous. The moon is 300,000km away, how on earth (so to speak) would anyone do this? If a laser gets reflected then that means the reflector would have to be perfectly perpendicular to the observer/laser source. This would be pretty much impossible.

With regard to the engineering, I never claimed to be an expert on anything. That's why I mentioned the physical and thermodynamic laws (laws of motion and energy conservation) which are very basic facets of engineering.

Engineering knowledge but seemingly doesn't understand how Line of Sight is required to be able view something through a telescope!!!

I thought for a split second CS had returned, but it seems to be more of a closet Flat Earther, given that with the engineering knowledge, no consideration is offered in your refutation for the horizon and the effect curvature of the earth has on the distance on can view.
Your engineering background should allow you to calculate fairly easily however at what height the Dublin based telescope would need to be placed to allow a clear view to London.

Would you care to do a quick calculation on that?

King Mob · 17-07-2019 2:43pm

bfa1509 wrote: »

Let's take the pinging moon example, it took all of two minutes to find that it is a lot more involved than you say it is and I highly doubt your friend had the means to do it:

https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/30138/is-pinging-the-moon-with-a-laser-as-shown-on-the-big-bang-theory-possible

Hold up now...
You said:

This concept of pinging a laser off a reflector on the moon is even more preposterous. The moon is 300,000km away, how on earth (so to speak) would anyone do this? If a laser gets reflected then that means the reflector would have to be perfectly perpendicular to the observer/laser source. This would be pretty much impossible.

Why did you claim this was "pretty much impossible" when retroreflectors exist and are in everyday ubiquitous use?
Did you not know that retroreflectors existed?

Also, you link's answer has quite a few references about retroreflectors and the lunar experiment.
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LRRR-94-0193.pdf
http://www.csr.utexas.edu/mlrs/

How do you address them in the context of your conspiracy? Are they fake and part of the conspiracy?

Also:
https://www.cnet.com/news/spectacular-space-station-photo-taken-from-a-back-yard/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waxqSCEFkBo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyD-3wze32U
http://www.astropix.com/html/planetary/iss_solar_transit.html
https://www.jeffcremerphotography.com/how-to-photograph-the-space-station

All fake?

Harry Palmr · 17-07-2019 2:51pm

bfa1509 wrote: »

And as for seeing the ISS using a 50euro scope, that could be anything like a satellite or a plane. But I'm sure an online NASA tracker told you otherwise?

It flies over us (albeit at a quite low trajectory usually) every night, get out there with some binoculars and see for yourself. The ISS is quite distinct with it's big solar arrays on either end of the modular structure.

Dohnjoe · 17-07-2019 3:04pm

bfa1509 wrote: »

I think the burden of explanation is on you.

Actually, the burden would be on yourself in this situation

The widely accepted theory (one that is overwhelmingly accepted as historical fact) is that man landed on the moon. If you have an alternative sequence of events then you must present that with credible evidence

Failing that, then you put anyone else in a hard position as you are simply maintaining a denialist position. A denialist position is a fallacy in itself because it results in you demanding proof/evidence from everyone else for something that you can subjectively reject. As much as you want, or all of it if you want.

E.g. taking a denialist position, no matter how much evidence everyone presents I could endlessly deny the Holocaust figures, it's relatively simple

In my experience that's often what these debates descend into - but that said, yeah, as I mentioned I still enjoy the moon landing debate, so create a new thread if you want. Even in a denialist position I think it's next to impossible for anyone to rationally/logically argue that man didn't land on the moon

M5 · 17-07-2019 3:19pm

Shifting the burden of proof, yet another goto strategy

Mate you must be a sanitation "engineer" given the complete rubbish you have put forward in this thread. "that's impossible" with no further discussion.

Clear lack of understanding of optics, atmospheric science, geology, vacuum, planetary science, lasers, reflectors, trigonometry, gravity, yet "engineering background",simply dosent add up

M5 · 17-07-2019 3:30pm

odyssey06 wrote: »

The Russians would have blown the whistle.

Nah, they put aside their cold War diffences in order to pull the wool over our eyes with NASA for reasons unknown.

Makes complete sense!

facehugger99 · 17-07-2019 3:34pm

bfa1509 wrote: »

I have an engineering background,

Not a terribly good one I'd imagine.

M5 · 17-07-2019 3:58pm

So if iss isn't real, then satellite TV is a hoax also? Not to mention GPS, weather satellites, transatlantic sat links? Again all visible with limited technology and favourable lighting conditions

Aligning a satellite dish involves pointing the dish at a target the size of a smart car at distances of minimum 2000 but up to 20,000 km over the equator, yet seeing an object the size of a football field at 400km is completely impossible?

M5 · 17-07-2019 4:55pm

bfa1509 wrote: »

I think the burden of explanation is on you. What if I said I found the cure for cancer and I want you to explain how I didnt?

Let's take the pinging moon example, it took all of two minutes to find that it is a lot more involved than you say it is and I highly doubt your friend had the means to do it:

https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/30138/is-pinging-the-moon-with-a-laser-as-shown-on-the-big-bang-theory-possible

And as for seeing the ISS using a 50euro scope, that could be anything like a satellite or a plane. But I'm sure an online NASA tracker told you otherwise?

My friend used the equipment here to complete the experiment as part of an astrophysics masters. Personally I'll take the word of someone who can get permission to use kit like this. Hope it meets your requirements?

bfa1509 · 17-07-2019 8:40pm

I always find it intriguing how upset people get when I throw any form of question mark over the moon landings. If what I'm saying is so far-fetched then why are you all so offended? Why not entertain the possibility if you are so comfortable with your own beliefs?

King Mob wrote: »

I don't think you understand what vacuum means...

What did I say about vacuums that is incorrect? If you have 1 ATM of pressure inside a space suit and near absolute zero outside, then you get a huge pressure gradient that, if it doesn't tear the material to shreds, will render it so incredibly rigid that no man could maneuver it. Unless he is superman of course. (I'm sure NASA will tell you that astronauts have super human strength from their prestigious training programs)

M5 · 17-07-2019 8:47pm

You effectively said that I can't possibly see the iss. I have done, it's incredibly easy to do. Theres literally nothing to entertain.

Cork Boy 53 · 17-07-2019 8:48pm

bfa1509 wrote: »

What did I say about vacuums that is incorrect? If you have 1 ATM of pressure inside a space suit and near absolute zero outside, then you get a huge pressure gradient that, if it doesn't tear the material to shreds, will render it so incredibly rigid that no man could maneuver it. Unless he is superman of course. (I'm sure NASA will tell you that astronauts have super human strength from their prestigious training programs)

I hope you have plenty of spare tinfoil hats handy. You seem to be going through them at a fair rate of knots.

King Mob · 17-07-2019 10:46pm

bfa1509 wrote: »

I always find it intriguing how upset people get when I throw any form of question mark over the moon landings. If what I'm saying is so far-fetched then why are you all so offended? Why not entertain the possibility if you are so comfortable with your own beliefs?
)

We are entertaining it. We made several direct points to you all of which you've avoided and seem to be unable to address.
Address them first, then maybe we can move into you very silly point about the gloves.

Overheal · 17-07-2019 11:06pm

bfa1509 wrote: »

I have an engineering background, and quite frankly, I can't believe any human ever got to space (or at least got to space and returned alive), let alone the moon landings. It breaks too many physical and thermodynamic laws, especially with the near perfect vacuum that is supposedly up there. (I can go at it with any opposers who are willing to spend the energy!!)

I very subtly and carefully hinted my doubts to some, close, considerate people I know and the one argument they always come up with is that too many people would have to keep it secret, thousands of people. This simply isn't true, the whole space program contracts all the projects out to 3rd party contractors who fulfil a specific project. All of these then converge together to form the program. Very few people need to be "in on it". And even if they blew the whistle, nobody would believe them.

As a Mechanical Engineer I do happen to know a thing or three about Thermodynamics and Physics, even had a helluva time for one term project researching the heat sinks on EVA suits. Fascinating stuff which relies on sublimating water to space to reject heat.

Earth and space-habitation atmosphere is 14.7 psia or 101.3 kPa. A can of soda @ 20 deg C sports about 250 kPa. So in actuality there is more pressure difference between the inside of a coke can and your living room than there is between an EVA suit and space, and the EVA suit is also made of many materials including those which give it strength and stiffness. Submarines work in the inverse way and are not physically impossible either. Also: submarines leak, and are designed to leak. They become more watertight as their are subjected to higher pressure at lower depths (similarly the SR-71 leaked fuel on the tarmac because it needed to be designed for the temperatures the frame experiences during supersonic flight).

The EVA gloves are no doubt the most dexterous part of the EVA suit and they are indeed designed to contain the 1 atmosphere pressure differential we're talking about here.

https://www.space.com/34263-what-its-like-working-in-space.html aside from the fact the narrator is a literal muppet theres a good video in there too

I've split these comments into a new thread so feel free to discuss. I'm not sure what laws you think are being violated - kinematic, thermodynamic, or otherwise, so please feel free to go in to as much detail as you want to argue your point.

Overheal · 17-07-2019 11:24pm

bfa1509 wrote: »

This concept of pinging a laser off a reflector on the moon is even more preposterous. The moon is 300,000km away, how on earth (so to speak) would anyone do this? If a laser gets reflected then that means the reflector would have to be perfectly perpendicular to the observer/laser source. This would be pretty much impossible.

This is the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment, and you can use that term to go research as much detail about it as you want.

In short: your suspicions are accurate - but your conclusions are not. Indeed, the reflector is designed to reflect light parallel back. However, as commercial airline pilots know all too well, lasers don't stay tightly confined over distances. Professional athletes know it too, from jerkoff fans, heck I know it from some whackadoodle shining a beam from a local hotel at cars on the highway.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iI7Qq1mYQlI

By the time the laser signal gets to the moon, the aperture radius is about 6km wide. A very tiny amount of photons are picked up by the reflector at this distance as you can imagine, and sent back. And the design of the lenses on the reflectors send them straight back with an aperture that is 10 miles wide by the time it returns to Earth. So LOTS of the laser energy is lost in the experiment. But the working principle is detecting just some of these monochromatic signals from the ruby laser, which are pulsed in a particular way such that equipment can be designed to detect it.

"Accurately timed pulses of light from a ruby laser are directed through a telescope which is aimed at the LRRR deployed on the Moon. The laser light striking the LRRR is reflected back on a path parallel to the incident beam. The reflected light is collected by the telescope and detected by special receiving equipment.

The time required for a pulse of light to reach the LRRR and be returned is used to establish the Earth-Moon distance at that time.

The telescope decreases the divergence of the laser beam by an amount equal to the ratio of the telescope aperture size to the diameter of the laser beam. A
telescope aperture of 100 inches is needed to reduce the divergence of a laser
beam so that its spot on the Moon is a little more than one mile in diameter.
Further reduction is prevented by the turbulence of the Earth's atmosphere.
The laser beam reflected by one of the retro-reflectors in the array on the
Moon is almost ten miles in diameter when it reaches the Earth. "

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/ALSEP/pdf/ALSEP%20%2323%20-%20LRRR%20Familiarization%20Manual_RevA_050171.pdf

Overheal · 17-07-2019 11:32pm

So you are telling me that you personally saw the ISS, which is supposedly 400 km above the earth's surface travelling at 28,000 km/hr? An equivalent example would be for you to use this scope to see the London Eye from Dublin, do you think this is possible?

This is indeed, totally possible. Telescope can be routinely trained to its orbital path, which is public knowledge. More powerful scopes, better view, but that's just light and optics again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNsCMBKFakk

The speed is the inconsequential part. Yes, it's going bloody fast, but it's also doing so bloody far away. You can similarly burn rubber on a motorway and still comfortably few scenery on the horizon without trouble.

This can also be independently verified.

Guy:Incognito · 17-07-2019 11:35pm

NASA should offer free one way trips to anyone who wants them and demands proof of space travel. I'm sure theres enough spare weight carrying capacity on any launches to take a couple of people up. Jettison them in space and let them float away to contemplate how wrong they are.

Overheal · 17-07-2019 11:43pm

Let's try and have a conversation focusing on the merits.

Dohnjoe · 18-07-2019 12:20am

bfa1509 wrote: »

I always find it intriguing how upset people get when I throw any form of question mark over the moon landings. If what I'm saying is so far-fetched then why are you all so offended? Why not entertain the possibility if you are so comfortable with your own beliefs?

Is there anything is this thread that has changed your view?

If not, then what is your current view?

M5 · 18-07-2019 8:55am

Ok, so poster with the questions. Any further clarification required on the ISS visibility, vacuum, or the laser retro reflector or can we take it you accept the overwhelming scientific concensus on all 3 issues you rasisd?

If not please provide evidence to the contrary or ask further questions if you would like.

I Would like to close this discussion before moving on to any further questions you may have which I for one will be happy to field once the initial questions are addressed

bfa1509 · 18-07-2019 11:18pm

Overheal wrote: »

Earth and space-habitation atmosphere is 14.7 psia or 101.3 kPa. A can of soda @ 20 deg C sports about 250 kPa. So in actuality there is more pressure difference between the inside of a coke can and your living room than there is between an EVA suit and space,

The EVA gloves are no doubt the most dexterous part of the EVA suit and they are indeed designed to contain the 1 atmosphere pressure differential we're talking about here.

I'm glad you raised this point, although it's a bit of a stretch to compare a can in a living room to a vessel in space, but it still gets the message across.

Aluminium cans are actually rated very high for pressure, (as your numbers show) so I wouldn't assume that a space suit having to meet similar or less requirements would be in any way easy.

Lets go through this together and you can disagree with/correct any point I make. If we split this up into two situations, before the can explodes and after the can explodes. As we could apply the same concept to the two examples I made above (pressure inside the suit and the 2mm hole in the ISS)

Before can explodes: If there is 250 kPa of pressure inside the can and 1atm (101kPa) outside, this would be the equivalent of 149kPa or 149,000 Newtons/square meter of pressure acting on the internal wall of the can. Lets say a space suit has 1atm pressure inside and is in space, and for arguments sake has an internal surface area of 1 square metre. This means that there is 101,000 Newtons of pressure force acting on the wall of the space suit. Lets say you took 1 metre squared of the space suit fabric, asked two men to hold the corners, then exert 101,000 N of force on the material. This would be the equivalent of the men holding 1.01 tonnes of weight between them. Imagine the stretch that would cause on the material? No matter how strong or flexible it is, it would be impossible for a man to stretch it further in order to move.

After can explodes: If the can is made up of about 10% gas (33ml) at the point of failure, it makes for a pretty dramatic explosion as the pressure between the inside of the can and the pressure of the room equalise:

https://youtu.be/iYefnNghfsw?t=110

I can't even comprehend what would happen if you had vacuum a million times stronger in the infinitesimally sized room of space and had a 2mm hole in the ISS. It would make for a pretty violent explosion as the air tries to equalise.

King Mob · 19-07-2019 12:34am

bfa1509 wrote: »

I'm glad you raised this point,

Hi, sorry. Several points have been made to you eariler in this thread.

We have asked you several times to address these before moving onto your next point.
Its very rude to ignore these and does not bode well that you are willing to avoid points you cannot address.

Please go back and address them.

M5 · 19-07-2019 7:50am

Yep, +1 on that, how do you explain the iss? It's clearly visible in detail with very rudimentary equipment?

How do you explain the reflector. On the moon. I asked this question in the first reply.

Moving the conversation on because you have no explanation is not going to fly

M5 · 19-07-2019 7:57am

FYI. Iss pass tonight. Clearly visible depending on cloud cover.

Grab binoculars or a scope and you will be able to verify this yourself. No NASA interference required. Your own eyes can verify.

start time 22:49 from wsw
Ends 22.56 in direction E

19-07-2019 8:24am

bfa1509 wrote: »

It breaks too many physical and thermodynamic laws...

Which are? Can you list them... apart from the vacuum.

Plus, can you confirm your stance on the Flat Earth "theory"?

Beechwoodspark · 19-07-2019 8:32am

Someone mentioned the flag “fluttering” on the moon

It didn’t flutter in the wind. There’s no atmosphere on the moon so that is ruled out.

It fluttered as a reaction to the energy waves from the LM when it boosted off the surface to rendezvous with the Command Module.

It actually ended up falling over according to Buzz Aldrin.

19-07-2019 8:37am

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

There’s no atmosphere on the moon so that is ruled out.

But there is on the sound stage inside area 51 dontcha know :pac:

Cork Boy 53 · 19-07-2019 8:38am

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Someone mentioned the flag “fluttering” on the moon

It didn’t flutter in the wind. There’s no atmosphere on the moon so that is ruled out.

It fluttered as a reaction to the energy waves from the LM when it boosted off the surface to rendezvous with the Command Module.

It actually ended up falling over according to Buzz Aldrin.

If you look at the old footage of the LM lifting off from the Moon, you can clearly see that the flag does whip around in the exhaust gases before toppling over.

Beechwoodspark · 19-07-2019 8:38am

Cork Boy 53 wrote: »

If you look at the old footage of the LM lifting off from the Moon, you can clearly see that the flag does whip around in the exhaust gases before toppling over.

Yes that’s right.

knucklehead6 · 19-07-2019 8:43am

bfa1509 wrote: »

I have an engineering background, and quite frankly, I can't believe any human ever got to space (or at least got to space and returned alive), let alone the moon landings. It breaks too many physical and thermodynamic laws, especially with the near perfect vacuum that is supposedly up there. (I can go at it with any opposers who are willing to spend the energy!!)

I very subtly and carefully hinted my doubts to some, close, considerate people I know and the one argument they always come up with is that too many people would have to keep it secret, thousands of people. This simply isn't true, the whole space program contracts all the projects out to 3rd party contractors who fulfil a specific project. All of these then converge together to form the program. Very few people need to be "in on it". And even if they blew the whistle, nobody would believe them.

I don’t think holding onto the back of your ear and making vroom vroom noises constitutes having an engineering background

facehugger99 · 19-07-2019 9:37am

bfa1509 wrote: »

https://youtu.be/iYefnNghfsw?t=110

You do know that youtube video you posted is of a can being heated?

While a can of soda at 20 degrees is at about 250kPA, at 35 degrees it's at 380kPA. I'm not sure what temperature those dudes heated it too but I'd wager it's a lot more than 35 degrees - I'd say the pressure is closer to 1,000 kPA.

So I don't get what your point is. Are you saying you don't think it's possible to construct a space suit that can withstand about 10% of the pressure differential that a can of soda can withstand?

bfa1509 · 19-07-2019 11:51am

King Mob wrote: »

Hi, sorry. Several points have been made to you eariler in this thread.

We have asked you several times to address these before moving onto your next point.
Its very rude to ignore these and does not bode well that you are willing to avoid points you cannot address.

Please go back and address them.

Firstly, I don't have to do anything before moving onto my next point, you don't have the power to dictate the confines of this thread. Although I can see why you would, because you aren't comfortable with discussing the other swaths of evidence against the moonlandings (most of which I haven't even mentioned yet).

I already said that the ISS crossing overhead could be anything, a satellite, a plane, a balloon. And with regard the retroreflectors, the only evidence you have is based on hearsay.

The biggest smoking gun of all should be NASA's own admission that we haven't been passed low earth orbit or the Van Allen Belts. But I guess you want me to come back and address your first two points before I'm allowed move on to this, eh?

M5 · 19-07-2019 12:00pm

YOU CAN SEE IT WITH A PAIR OF BINOCULARS YOURSELF, TONIGHT!!! THAT'S NOT HERESAY

You're basically now calling me a liar! I have seen it, the shape including solar panels, modules etc with my own eyes. It wasn't a plane. I'm fairly sure I know what one looks like

Do you have a sat nav?
Do you watch live sports from another continent?
How do accounts for satellite dish alignment?

For someone with engineering background a lot of your options seem to be based on hunches and completely devoid of any engineering reasoning. Ironically all ****ing hearsay!

Get out this evening and look yourself! That will at least confirm your suspicions, right?

King Mob · 19-07-2019 12:07pm

bfa1509 wrote: »

Firstly, I don't have to do anything before moving onto my next point, you don't have the power to dictate the confines of this thread. Although I can see why you would, because you aren't comfortable with discussing the other swaths of evidence against the moonlandings (most of which I haven't even mentioned yet).

I am comfortable with discussing them and I can easily show them to be nonsense on several levels.
But I don't think that will be worth the effort when you seem to find it acceptable to just ignore points you can't address.

bfa1509 wrote: »

I already said that the ISS crossing overhead could be anything, a satellite, a plane, a balloon.

Lol.
No it can't. Go back and read the posts again, particularly the links detailing how images of the ISS can be captured from the ground.

bfa1509 wrote: »

And with regard the retroreflectors, the only evidence you have is based on hearsay.

None of what I posted is hearsay...
I pointed out that retroreflectors exist and they are in every day use despite you claiming that what they do is impossible.
Again, you need to go back and re read it then attempt to address it properly.

bfa1509 wrote: »

The biggest smoking gun of all should be NASA's own admission that we haven't been passed low earth orbit or the Van Allen Belts. But I guess you want me to come back and address your first two points before I'm allowed move on to this, eh?

Yes, I would like you to address the points already brought up before bringing up new points.
Thanks.

M5 · 19-07-2019 12:11pm

OP: id be happy to debate
Me: ask question
OP

victor8600 · 19-07-2019 12:12pm

bfa1509 wrote: »

So you are telling me that you personally saw the ISS, which is supposedly 400 km above the earth's surface travelling at 28,000 km/hr?

I have.

Admittedly, I cannot prove it to a staunch conspiracy theorist. Sure, I have seen something resembling the ISS moving in the sky where the ISS was predicted to be. But it could have been a hologram projected onto the sky from Kremlin.

M5 · 19-07-2019 12:20pm

The op calling verifiable experiments hearsay while quoting directly from conspiracy websites is delicious when you think about it

bfa1509 · 19-07-2019 12:20pm

King Mob wrote: »

I am comfortable with discussing them and I can easily show them to be nonsense on several levels.
But I don't think that will be worth the effort when you seem to find it acceptable to just ignore points you can't address.

Lol.
No it can't. Go back and read the posts again, particularly the links detailing how images of the ISS can be captured from the ground.

None of what I posted is hearsay...
I pointed out that retroreflectors exist and they are in every day use despite you claiming that what they do is impossible.
Again, you need to go back and re read it then attempt to address it properly.

Yes, I would like you to address the points already brought up before bringing up new points.
Thanks.

Well fortunately, this is an open forum, and I don't have to stick to your rules.

I understand why most people are upset about what I'm saying. I was a fan of all things space related a few years back and I probably would have been offended too if someone told me it was all fake. That was until I saw a few bizarre pieces of footage from the moonlanding that were in no way convincing. And I slowly started to find that reading into the whole hoax was far more interesting than anything else.

I'm now speaking to any interested, open-minded lurkers. This video is a good place to start:

And don't let those calling you a tin-foil hat wearing consipiracy theorist dissuade you from pursuing it further.

M5 · 19-07-2019 12:22pm

YouTube a peer reviewed source now?

This is hillarious

Hoaxesssss innnnn Spaaaaaace

Comments